height to weight scale

[Hampshire]

You've all probably seen this chart (http://www.betaller.com/height-and-weight.html) before. It tells you how much you should weigh for your height.
If your outside the range your considered "overweight".

Is this even anywhere close to being realistic?
I'm a 6'1 male with a medium build (definately not large) and it says that if I'm over 174 lbs. I'm overweight??
5 years ago I was very in shape, had a 32" waist, looked very very skinny and weighed in at 192. According to the chart that puts me at borderline overweight with a large build???
5 years later and about 210 I look slim to average but not overweight at all with a 34" waist. According to the chart I must be seriously overweight.

So where do you fit in on this chart. If you actually made it where you need to be are you extremely thin?
How realistic is this thing?

[Athena]

For my height and build, their high number is a pound less than what I personally would consider my drop dead low weight. So no, I don't consider it to be very realistic, unless we're talking models, actors, anorexics, or very very tiny people.

My God, I just looked at the men's table - according to them, Mr. Athena should weigh 30 pounds lower than his current target weight (we're both trying to lose a few pounds.) If he weighed what that chart said, he'd have no muscle mass at all, and look emaciated. He's currently about fifty pounds above the stated weight on that table, and he looks fine. Not skinny, but far from overweight.

[cher3]

It works for me. I'm 5'9" with a medium frame, and the lowest in that range is quite appropriate for me. I maintained that weight as an adult for a long time, until I got sedentary. I'm trying to get back there now.

[Walkabout]

That scale is on a site promoting a weight loss program, so I'd say they're trying to drum up some business. I think the scale here (http://inch-aweigh.com/bmi.htm) is a bit more realistic.

[Sevo]

How realistic is this thing?

Depends on what you mean. I can't speak for that chart, but BMI (Body mass index) is a commonly used medical measure (a weight-to-body surface area ratio) that is associated with increasing health risks:

From WebMD (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2731_1657):

A person with a BMI of 24 or less is considered to be an ideal weight. A person with a BMI of 25-29.9 is considered to be overweight. Individuals who fall into the BMI range of 25 to 34.9, and have a waist size of over 40 inches for men and 35 inches for women, are considered to be at especially high risk for obesity-related health problems, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. A BMI over 40 indicates that a person is morbidly obese. This can increases a person's risk of death from any cause by 50%-150%.

Typically, the "ideal" range for BMI is what would be considered societally to be skinny. For example, on the BMI chart (http://www.mos.org/cst/article/2040/download_12440.jpg), you can get your BMI by comparing your height and weight. I'm 6'3". According to the CDC, I'm "normal" even down to 152 pounds. That would look pretty darn thin on a 6'3" frame.

[Walkabout]

That scale is on a site promoting a weight loss program, so I'd say they're trying to drum up some business. I think the scale here (http://inch-aweigh.com/bmi.htm) is a bit more realistic.

Whoops, never mind. I didn't realize they had the same charts down at the bottom.

[ultrafilter]

How realistic is this thing?

Extremely, as long as you're talking populations and not individuals.

[slortar]

I've seen it before. I think body fat percentage is a somewhat more useful measurement.

For example, my BMI tells me I'm "overweight" at 171 lbs for my height (5'9"), but my body fat is in the low teens. According to that chart, I'm well into the "large frame" area, but most "frame" measurements peg me as high medium.

I have a suspicion that most of these charts and tables aren't really based on statistically valid information. They probably just polled 3 people at their local gym on what they think good weight ranges would be. :)

[Bippy the Beardless]

Is there any chart that takes into account shoulder width as well. Or other such body-type measurements. I feel discouraged when I supposedly should be in the same weight category as a wimpy guy with 18 inches from shoulder to shoulder.

[Lamar Mundane]

I recently had a fitness assessment done and my lean body mass (if I had 0% fat) is more than that scale considers "overweight".

According to the chart, I have been overweight since I was a High School junior, including the four years when I was a competitive Big Ten athlete.

I suspect most Olympic athletes, except for distance runners, would be classified as overweight by that chart.

[badmana]

I recently had a fitness assessment done and my lean body mass (if I had 0% fat) is more than that scale considers "overweight".

According to the chart, I have been overweight since I was a High School junior, including the four years when I was a competitive Big Ten athlete.

I suspect most Olympic athletes, except for distance runners, would be classified as overweight by that chart.
BMI almost always comes with a disclaimer against exactly what you're talking about. Special non-fat cases (like any decently fit person) shouldn't even be worried about BMI.

http://www.hughston.com/hha/a_16_2_2.htm explains that growning kids/fit adults should use other methods.

For your average joe BMI gives you a general idea of overall health (average joe American in this case is probably already overweight). Mine is probably a little too low (24.5) mostly due to a recent fever that took 10 lbs off me in 2 days :D

[MaddyStrut]

I went to the site but got distracted by the claims that they could make you up to three inches taller with stretching exercises.

[ultrafilter]

For your average joe BMI gives you a general idea of overall health (average joe American in this case is probably already overweight). Mine is probably a little too low (24.5) mostly due to a recent fever that took 10 lbs off me in 2 days :D

You have to be very cautious when making statements about individuals using population data. Give me a group of 10,000 Americans selected at random and I'll bet good money that the ones classified as unhealthy by BMI will die sooner than the ones who aren't. Give me one guy selected at random, and all bets are off.

I know we've had some fairly enlightening threads on this in the past, but since you can't search for BMI, I'm having trouble finding anything.

[drm]

i'm around 6 feet (183cm) and the last time I checked I weighed 210 or there abouts and my body fat is around 13%. According to that chart I'm very overweight.

According to most charts, that's an acceptable body fat percentage (here (http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm)) but I'm still not really sure what to think.

[Mullinator]

At least you all have a chart. I'm still 5 inches away from it being useful.

[ultrafilter]

Found it (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=214808). In particular, see post #48 and pretty much everything else Dr_Paprika wrote in there.

[gigi]

For my height and build, their high number is a pound less than what I personally would consider my drop dead low weight.

Same here. Even ten pounds over their highest number is quite comfortable for me.

[LionelHutz405]

How does one know what size 'frame' they are?

[NurseCarmen]

Whoops, never mind. I didn't realize they had the same charts down at the bottom.
Look again!

You were right. The rainbow colored charts differ, with the weight loss page near my weight differing by ten pounds!

[lieu]

Charting it out they say my weight's just right . . . if I'm around nine feet tall.

[NurseCarmen]

:smack:
I was looking at the male chart on one, and the female chart on another.

[Madd Maxx]

How does one know what size 'frame' they are?
There is a little tag on the small of your back that also has cleaning directions and a materials list. Don't tell me you lost yours? It's against the law to take it off.

[cher3]

I don't know if it really means anything, but a rough test of frame size is circling your wrist at the bone with your thumb and index finger. If they overlap, you have a small frame, if the tips touch, you have and medium frame, and if they don't touch at all, you have a large frame.

[chaparralv8]

According on that chart, I was overweight on a large frame on May 26, 2001, at 5'8", 175 lbs.

That day, I ran a 4:17 mile.

I rest my case.

[alice_in_wonderland]

Well, it works ok for me, but I've always been on the thinish side. I don't think I would take it very seriously.

[Ellis Dee]

Well, it works ok for me, but I've always been on the thinish side. I don't think I would take it very seriously.Agreed. In fact, I would have made the same post verbatim but you already did it for me.

Of course, I don't enjoy eating, and am not familiar with the concept of "comfort food", so being thin is what I struggle against. I can easily drop to 20 pounds below my charted minimum, but I'm currently only about 5 pounds below the minimum.

[LionelHutz405]

I don't know if it really means anything, but a rough test of frame size is circling your wrist at the bone with your thumb and index finger. If they overlap, you have a small frame, if the tips touch, you have and medium frame, and if they don't touch at all, you have a large frame.

OK, then according to that, I'm a medium.
Which is good, because that is what the tag on my back says too.

[ZebraShaSha]

I always considered myself to be skinny, with everyone else around me considering the same, so that chart is atleast somewhat accurate. It says I should gain between 20-40 pounds. Hey, I'm not arguing, I just don't take it too seriously. The day when it tells me how to gain weight, however - that is when I'll take it more seriously.

[unclviny]

The first chart indicated that I was obese (110 lbs overweight) and the BMI thingie has me at 40 and apparently I am morbidly obese. I am 6' 1" and weigh 305 lbs, I have a 19 inch neck, I wear size 14 EEE shoes and a size 54 tall jacket so I think that these folks need to expand the chart a little for us "big folks".

P.S. I think that I am about 40 lbs overweight, not 110!

Unclviny

[aurelian]

Hmpfff. Apparently no women are more than 6' tall, either. And I have no idea what size 'frame' I am...

[Burnt Sugar]

I don't know if it really means anything, but a rough test of frame size is circling your wrist at the bone with your thumb and index finger. If they overlap, you have a small frame, if the tips touch, you have and medium frame, and if they don't touch at all, you have a large frame.

Hmmm... Well, apparently I have a large frame then. And that puts me in at over 10lb underweight. That thing is definitely off. I'm curvy! There's no way in hell I'm underweight. I fit in fine for a "small frame," but I have swimmers shoulders (well, gymnasts' shoulders) and I'm pretty muscly*.

It's all bull, in my opinion.

*That spelling just looks wrong...

[Kaitlyn]

The BMI has me at 18, and the charts say that at 5' 7" tall and 115 lbs., I'm about 10 pounds underweight. On the other hand, I exercise daily, have a healthy heart, muscle tone, and blood chemistry, so I don't really fit into the general categories there.

[Snickers]

Geez, 133? Yeah, that's my *goal*, but apparently I'm a small frame according to the wrist test and they have that as my maximum! And I've got 10 pounds to lose to get there. Nutz to this.

[Happy Lendervedder]

According to the top chart, I'm on the heavy end of normal (6'4", 187 lbs, medium frame), but on the color chart, I'm smack dab in the middle of normalcy.

At my highest weight (210), on the top chart, I would've been considered too heavy even if I was large framed. But on the bottom chart, 210 for a 6'4" male is still considered 'normal.'


Am I getting this right?



Happy

[Sleel]

People misuse the BMI a lot. It is one indicator that fits the bulk of the curve, but there are an awful lot of people at the ends of the bell. It doesn't fit many people who are in good shape since having more muscle mass than average throws off the whole scale. It doesn't fit non-Europeans very well since Asians have lower and Africans have higher bone density than the average person of European descent. It's basically only good for indicating the average health of a large population, as people have said earlier.

Body fat is a much better indicator than BMI, but you've got to get good measurements. I've found from experience that those body fat scales and impedance gadgets are close to worthless for measuring body fat. I've lost about 10 kg (22 lbs.) since starting a workout program last year. I've lost at least 10 cm (about 3-4 in.) in the waist and have gained noticeable amounts of muscle. The Tanita body fat scale I got last August has registered a change of about 2 percent in body fat; down to 24 percent from 26 percent. No way did I lose only 2 percent and no way am I still at 24 percent body fat. I'm down to mid teens by now. I used another body fat calculator on the net, based on body measurements, and found that I was 6.6 percent, which is also ludicrous.

I ordered calipers recently so I should get a better measurement soon. Too bad I didn't have them before so I could find out exactly how fat I actually was before I started getting back in shape.

[Cisco]

I'm 6'5", 160-165ish, which would be on the low end of their scale, but despite what someone said, I don't look "emaciated" at all and I do indeed have a modest amount of muscle-mass. Last spring I bench-pressed 220lbs, which is a hell of a lot more (especially relatively speaking) than a lot of bigger guys can put up.

[Kiki]

At 5' 9" and my weight fluctuating between 115-120 pounds, that chart puts me at being underweight. Nothing new to me... I've always been really thin. The only time I've ever gained weight was when I was pregnant and I gained 60 with my first baby and 65 pounds with my second baby! 7-8 months later I was right back down to 110 pounds. It's only in the last year that I've managed to gain any weight.

I've always heard that women that are 5 feet tall should weigh about 100 pounds and you add 5 pounds for every inch you are that's above 5 feet. According to that I should weight 145 pounds. I don't think that's accurate. I've seen myself at 145 pounds (3 months after giving birth) and I was a size 10 with a double chin, a fat face and belly rolls. Not ideal IMO. I'm much more comfortable at 120 and size 6!

[down by law]

damn. i'm 6'-1" or 2" with a medium build, and i'm supposed to be down around 175? my dad weighs 175, and he's damn skinny. like no chest, no ass, and tiny legs skinny. and that's at the top end of their scale. i used to weigh around 210 and i felt a little overweight, but i didn't have a pot belly or double chin or anything. if i had more muscle i would have been fine with that weight.

right now i'm sitting at 190 and feel pretty thin. even in high school, when i had my growth spurt, i weighed right at 170, and i was a stick. i have a friend that is a marathon runner, and at 6'-3" weighs about 155, and apparently he's in the right range, according to the chart. but he's about the skinniest person i've ever seen.

[Barbarian]

I think the OP's question need to be modified: Where on the Body-mass-index scale do you fall, and how active are you?

I'm about 5'8" and 142 pounds at the moment, that makes me somwhere between 22 and 23 on the Index. I also cycle for a minimum of 2 hours a week, walk briskly for about an hour, and I usually lift weights for about another 2 hours a week.

If I managed to bulk up to 160 pounds because I hit the gym with more frequency, and I'm walking around with a BMI of 24+, that's a hell of a lot different than if I pack on 18 pounds of fat on my frame. If I did that, I'd be my dad, who has a developed a massive potbelly in the past decade, but can still run just as fast as I can.

[Barbarian]

Down by law by my math your friend has a BMI of 19.5, which is on the skinny side of the range.

[overlyverbose]

right now i'm sitting at 190 and feel pretty thin. even in high school, when i had my growth spurt, i weighed right at 170, and i was a stick. i have a friend that is a marathon runner, and at 6'-3" weighs about 155, and apparently he's in the right range, according to the chart. but he's about the skinniest person i've ever seen.

I, too, am a marathon runner. I had to take a break for a few months due to physical therapy, but even when I was going into my sessions, I still did at least 45 minutes of cardio and 20 minutes of weight training about 4-5 times a week and 3 times a week, respectively. As a 5'9'' female weighing in at 185 pounds, this scale indicates that I'm nearly obese; however, my body fat has been measured at 23-24%. I have a fairly large frame and could probably stand to lose a few pounds (maybe 10 - 15, which would be this scale's high end of "normal), but I'd hardly say I'm in danger of becoming obese.

As has been mentioned before, I this scale is probably more accurate for people who aren't involved in more extreme sports or even regular vigorous exercise.

[Athena]

I've always heard that women that are 5 feet tall should weigh about 100 pounds and you add 5 pounds for every inch you are that's above 5 feet. According to that I should weight 145 pounds. I don't think that's accurate. I've seen myself at 145 pounds (3 months after giving birth) and I was a size 10 with a double chin, a fat face and belly rolls. Not ideal IMO. I'm much more comfortable at 120 and size 6!

It's all how you're built. I'm 5'6", and my drop dead lowest weight I'd ever want to be (not that I've achieved it in years :D ) is 145. At 145, I wear a size 8, and I look thin but not skinny. I'd still have hips and boobs, a mostly flat stomach, and far from a double chin or fat face. Hell, I think I'd have to get near 190 before I had a double chin (I've never gotten above 175, so I'm not sure, but I was far from a double chin at that weight.) As it stands, 155 and size 10 is fine with me, too, but I have 10 pounds to go before I get there!

For what it's worth, the chart said the highest I should weigh is 144. Sorry, not for me. I like boobs and normal menstrual cycles and muscles.

[taxi78cab]

It's all how you're built. I'm 5'6", and my drop dead lowest weight I'd ever want to be (not that I've achieved it in years :D ) is 145. At 145, I wear a size 8, and I look thin but not skinny. I'd still have hips and boobs, a mostly flat stomach, and far from a double chin or fat face. <snip>

Thank you! After Kiki's post, I was feeling HUGE. I'm 5'7" and I fluctuate around 145 lbs. Compared to Kiki at 5'9" and 115 lbs, I'm a giant! Thanks for making me feel normal again.

[Burnt Sugar]

Body fat is a much better indicator than BMI, but you've got to get good measurements. I've found from experience that those body fat scales and impedance gadgets are close to worthless for measuring body fat. I've lost about 10 kg (22 lbs.) since starting a workout program last year. I've lost at least 10 cm (about 3-4 in.) in the waist and have gained noticeable amounts of muscle. The Tanita body fat scale I got last August has registered a change of about 2 percent in body fat; down to 24 percent from 26 percent. No way did I lose only 2 percent and no way am I still at 24 percent body fat. I'm down to mid teens by now. I used another body fat calculator on the net, based on body measurements, and found that I was 6.6 percent, which is also ludicrous.

I ordered calipers recently so I should get a better measurement soon. Too bad I didn't have them before so I could find out exactly how fat I actually was before I started getting back in shape.

I have a friend (an electrical engineer) who is in a team developing a machine to calculate body fat using some sort of electronic method. Should be pretty useful once it's released, I would think!

[Coileán]

According to the chart in the OP, I've a borderline hieght-wieght relationship (depending on how one measues frame size). FWIW this seems fairly accurate. I do have a bit of belly, love handels, and a pair of chins.

[alice_in_wonderland]

I've always heard that women that are 5 feet tall should weigh about 100 pounds and you add 5 pounds for every inch you are that's above 5 feet. According to that I should weight 145 pounds. I don't think that's accurate. I've seen myself at 145 pounds (3 months after giving birth) and I was a size 10 with a double chin, a fat face and belly rolls. Not ideal IMO. I'm much more comfortable at 120 and size 6!

Actually, I think it depends how much muscle mass you have. I pretty much fit that add 5 lbs for each inch - 5'8", 140. I wear a size 6 pretty comfortably. At 150 I rocket up to a size 8, but I'm still not flabby, double chinish, belly rolled, etc. I'm assuming I just have more muscle mass (I have a pretty muscular back and butt) than you. Humm, that sounds snarky, and I don't mean it that way. I been known to box - I've got me some pipes. :)

[Trunk]

I think the OP's question need to be modified: Where on the Body-mass-index scale do you fall, and how active are you?

I'm about 5'8" and 142 pounds at the moment, that makes me somwhere between 22 and 23 on the Index. I also cycle for a minimum of 2 hours a week, walk briskly for about an hour, and I usually lift weights for about another 2 hours a week.

If I managed to bulk up to 160 pounds because I hit the gym with more frequency, and I'm walking around with a BMI of 24+, that's a hell of a lot different than if I pack on 18 pounds of fat on my frame. If I did that, I'd be my dad, who has a developed a massive potbelly in the past decade, but can still run just as fast as I can.
The OP's question doesn't have to be modified.

What has to be modified is everyone's understanding of what BMI means.

If anyone actually decided to follow ultrafilter's link, instead of just chiming in with their stories, they would have read the following

What it shows is that high BMIs are correlated to dying from heart disease. That's it. And the studies include people with high BMIs because they are fat, as well as high BMIs because they are fit or stacked.

There ya go. You show me a million guys who are 6'2" 175 pounds, and a million guys who are 6'2" 205 pounds, and the guys who are 205 are going to have a higher rate of dying from heart disease than the guys who are 175.

Yeah, the 205 guy who is a running, weight-lifting, fitness fiend is unquestionably healthier than the 175 pound couch potato and will probably out live him. That doesn't dispute what the BMI says in the slightest.